Unpopular vote: If you dump the Electoral College

ALBUQUERQUE TRIBUNE ^ | 8-11-2004 | Jeffry Gardner

[Ramius]

Additionally, the EC may not be as kind to Bush in 2004 as it was in 2000.

I'm not sure about that. From what I've seen, there's actually been about a 7 vote shift in Bush's favor due to demographic shifts between the states.

[AmishDude]

Well, the states could unilaterally choose to allocate their electors proportionally. I say we start with CA, IL, NY and see how it works from there.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

'Rats are hedonists. They don't like rules and prefer to make them up as they go.

[Still Thinking]

But you're still showing Ventura county, CA (the rightmost of the two blue counties just above Alaska) as blue, when in fact I believe it went for Bush.

[StoneFury]

I don't think having multi-party government systems (ie. more than two parties) is such a great idea. Look at the stagnation that occurs in the European governments anytime they want to get some kind of major legislation passed. Their majority party need to make concessions and promises to other parties in exchange for their votes, then they have years of reports and committees to study the environmental/social/whatever impact of the bill, so that the least number of people are offended.

I won't deny it happens here also, but you'll just be multiplying the red tape you need to wade through. In the end you get a watered-down version that few are really happy with.

[Still Thinking]

And other than some legislative garbage promoted by Hillary, there is no way to dump the Electoral College except through an amendment.

What are you talking about? How could this be done without a Constitutional amendment?

[pete anderson]

Bush is going to Win Very big in Red States, 10-20 points ahead of Kerry.

Kerry will only win CA and NY by a few points and if Kerry manages to win MI, WV, NV, NH and either FL or OH by a point we will have a situation where Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry wins the Electoral College.

[visualops]

No no no! lol
You don't fully understand how the EC works. There is no national election per se, only separate state elections. For a candidate to become president, they must win enough state elections to get the majority of electoral votes. The vote in each state then determines a slate of electors who make the actual choice of president and vice president. Please remember we are a Republic (of states).
The fact that the EC gave us Clinton simply means that, as a whole, that's whom the country chose. Bad choice, yes, but the country's choice. The EC does not prevent what may be in retrospect bad choices.
Candidates don't "ignore" states. If a group of people are already in your camp, and in fact may be doing what they can to convince those that aren't, that's fine. I don't have a problem when Bush spends his time in the "battleground states". I want him to win.

I've included this snippet here, since it's a really great explanation of one aspect of the EC:

IV. Does my vote count?

Yes, your vote counts. Some people have complained since 2000 that if the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president, their vote doesn't really count, so why vote at all? But every vote does count; it just counts in a more complicated way. When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state — but it may count more or less than that of someone living in another state!

What's a vote worth?

Why does the actual weight of your vote vary by state? Remember that every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House of Representatives is divided approximately by population — big states have the most representatives, small states have the fewest — but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone.

Consider three states: California (the state with the biggest population), North Carolina (a medium-sized state), and Alaska (with one of the smallest populations). This table shows their population and number of electoral votes in 2000. The fourth column shows the number of residents per elector (population divided by electoral votes), and the last column shows the weight of an individual vote in the given state — that is, how the number of residents per elector compares to the national average.

	Population	Electoral votes	Residents per elector	Weight of vote
California	33,871,648	54	627,253	0.83
North Carolina	8,049,313	14	574,951	0.91
Alaska	626,932	3	208,977	2.50
United States	281,421,906	538	523,089	1.00

As you can see, Alaska, a very small state, has far fewer residents per electoral vote than the national average, so individual votes cast in Alaska count more than the national average — twice as much, in fact! A voter in California has a little less influence than the average American, about 83% as much. A voter in North Carolina has about 91% the influence of the average American. (You can calculate weight of vote in a given state by dividing the national average of residents per elector by that state's residents per elector. Since we're comparing each state to the national average, the weight of vote for the entire United States is exactly 1. Don't get it? Read more about the math.)

A paradox

While every American's vote counts, then, your vote counts more if you live in a small state like Alaska than it does if you live in a big state like California. This seems like a paradox, because clearly a big state as a whole has more influence than a small state. If you're running for president, you are more concerned about winning California, with its 54 electoral votes, than you are about winning Alaska with its 3 electoral votes. As a matter of strategy, you'd probably spend more time and money campaigning in the big states than in smaller states. As a result, residents of big states tend to get more attention in presidential elections than residents of small states, and so small-staters may feel left out and unimportant. Yet in reality, each individual voter has less influence in a big state than in a small state.

But is it fair?

Ah, that's the question! It certainly doesn't seem fair that a voter in Alaska effectively has more say about who becomes president than a voter in California. But Alaska is a perfect example of why the electoral college was created. Because it's such a big state geographically, and because it is so far from the 48 contiguous states, Alaska has unique interests that, many would argue, deserve representation equal to the interests of New York or California. Other big western states with small populations, such as Montana and North Dakota, would make similar arguments. Of course, it's hard to argue that Delaware, which had 3 electors and only 783,600 residents in 2000 (for a weight of vote of 2.00), really has unique interests that deserve special consideration. The fairness of the electoral system has been debated for more than 200 years, and it doesn't appear that the debate is going to die down anytime soon.

http://www.learnnc.org/learnnc/lessonp.nsf/fe2012df70f2d67585256b6100661f61/7b7a254e241f9c5185256e44004abea5/$FILE/electoralcollege.html

[Fiddlstix]

LEAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALONE!

[BobS]

"Ive only posted an article once before way back in 99 and I felt lucky just to get it up here, ok guys."

You did well! A little rusty, but well:):)

[Arkinsaw]

If the Electoral College is eliminated then candidates will be working 24 hours a day to drive up high margins for themselves in urban areas.

Right now they angle for 51% and spend any other efforts trying to pick up other places. If this occurs they will spend the whole campaign trying to drive it to 52%, then 53%, etc. Because everything over 50% plus one still counts.

So you have 60% of the vote in New York. Its still worth more trying to get an additional 5% there than it is to spend money in Wyoming.

Its more cost effective to go for the extra percentage in New York because the voters are there, easier to reach, and less costly to reach per voter. Plus, as you try to gain more there, the voters you already have are reinforced as well because they see the candidate there also.

Its a horrible, horrible idea. With even far worse consequences than the direct election of Senators.

[X-FID]

Then the fraudulent votes in the dem areas can really be cranked out and used nationally instead of just to win a state.

Not a good idea IMHO.

[NonValueAdded]

More supporting data here: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2000 REPORT

This is really a deja vu experience for me because I was reviewing my links today and just happened to look at the report with details like this:

[Paleo Conservative]

But Kerry would have to win some states that Bush carried in 2000. Those states now have 278 EV rather than 271.

[Long Cut]

The EC system is not the problem...the problem is the "winner take all" rules that most states use (and it is THEIR descision as to how to allocate their EC's).

An alternate system has been proposed before, and it is quite good.

Instead of the candidate who recieves 51% of a state's popular vote taking ALL of its EC's, they would be allocated by congressional district. The candidate winning the majority in a DISTRICT gets that DISTRICT's EC. There are 435 total.

THEN, the candidate getting the majority of the popular vote in the STATE gets two extra EC's...those representing its Senators. The state of Maine uses this system currently, as does one other state which escapes me. Thus, the 535 total EC's available.

With this system, California's 54- EV bonanza would NOT all go to one candidate. It would instead be divided, and those people in Congressional districts favoring Republicans would see their EC's go to their candidate, instead of watching them be "given" to a Democrat.

Were this system in place nationawide in 2000, the President would have won in a landslide. It would also, IMHO, be a better way to represent the people's wishes.

[Long Cut]

See post # 55. The EC need not be replaced, just tweaked a bit.

[supercat]

The quick answer to this is pragmatic. One third of the Senate can block any proposal to amend the Constitution. That means 34 Senators. Yet more than 17 states are "small" states whose impact in the Electoral College are twice as much in proportion to population as the four largest states. Those Senators would have to betray the obvious interests of their own states to pass such an amendment.

If an amendment were made to force states to require states to allocate all but two to congressional-district winners, and allocate the remaining two to the overall winner, I wonder how that would play in the House, Senate, and state legislatures? I think more than 38 states would improve their level of representation, but I don't think the Democrats would want to lose the Califoriniamegavote.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The stagnation occurs when they want some socialist piece of legislation passed, too. As has been said, "The only time we are safe is when Congress isn't in session." An axiom is, "We are also safer when Congress cannot pass new laws taking away our freedom."

Don't buy the line that "things won't get done". For the most part, we are better off.

[Long Cut]

See post #55. Thoughts? I know I may have fuged some numbers, I totally forgot Washington, DC's EC's, but the concept still works.

[supercat]

Were this system in place nationawide in 2000, the President would have won in a landslide.

I recall it was a significant victory, but nowhere near as huge as the red/blue map would suggest (because the vast areas of red have much less dense Congressional districts than the blue ones).